A CLIP FROM THE NBC SEGMENT "WAITING TO EXPLODE" SHOWS A GM
TRUCK EXPLODES INTO FLAMES. WHAT MOTIVATED NBC TO RIG THE EXPLOSION?

Detroit

In an unprecedented and meticulously detailed attack,
General Motors Corp. sued NBC charging defamation, and publicly accused the
network of rigging a test crash of GM pickup trucks on its Dateline news
program. The announcement of the lawsuit, General Motors’ (GM) first defamation
suit ever, was the first public action in what The Wall Street Journal described
as "the most humiliating episode of crow-eating in the nearly four-decade
history of NBC News." The suit stemmed from an episode of the NBC television
news programmed Dateline. That episode showed a car ramming a full-sized
GM pickup truck in its side, causing the truck to explode in a ball of flames.
NBC staged the crash to illustrate an alleged consumer safety defect in the
older GM pickup trucks – gas tanks that were vulnerable to side impact
collisions. The story was entitles "Waiting to Explode."

TV producers often simulate or recreate events to obtain footage when film of
actual events is unavailable. However, sharp-eyed observers, including GM
officials, noted something unusual about the staged accident. There were small
flashes of fire below the truck before the car hit it. General Motors
launched an investigation that subsequently resulted in the lawsuit for
defamation. It charged that NBC News had rigged the demonstration by setting off
a series of toy model rocket engines just before the collision, thus ensuring an
explosion and fire upon impact. Who could imagine that toys would cause so much
trouble for NBC?

The publicly announced lawsuit shocked NBC executives. It was accompanied by
a GM boycott on advertising on NBC News. Prior to the announcements GM had sent
letters to NBC, but NBC News President Michael Gartner was not informed of the
problem until it was near full crisis. Gartner, a former newspaper editor and
columnist had presided over radical cost-cutting measures at NBC News, measures
that along with the success of shows such as Dateline, finally made the
news division profitable. NBC personnel variously described Gartner’s management
style as frosty, aloof, and prickly.

When NBC top managers saw the evidence, they knew they had to act. Three
months after "Waiting to Explode" was shown, Dateline hosts Jane Pauley
and Stone Phillips apologized on Dateline to GM and to viewers for the
rocket fiasco, although NBC stood by the rest of the story. NBC also agreed to
reimburse GM $2 million in investigation costs. In turn, GM dropped the lawsuit
and reinstituted its advertising.

About three weeks later, Michael Gartner resigned from NBC. Two weeks after
this, following an independent investigation that Gartner initiated, three top
executives involved with the truck incident were fired – Jeff Diamond, executive
producer of Dateline; David Rummel, senior producer; and Robert Read,
producer of the GM episode. Diamond and Read were veteran TV newspeople
previously recruited from ABC’s 20/20.

In the aftermath of the events, there was much discussion about the erosion
of journalistic values in the face of stiff competition among seven prime time
newsmagazines. Some observers alleged that the quest of rating was resulting in
"tabloid television." Even the journalistic establishment, which often closes
ranks in the face of threat, found nothing to defend in this incident.

Organizations are social groups or gatherings whose purpose is to accomplish
a common goal. The goals of some organizations may be to raise money for
themselves and the goals of other organizations may be to raise money for a
non-profit foundation. It can be said that organizations vary in sizes,
locations, and goals.

Social Inventions

The term social invention refers to the gathering of people as oppose to
other things. Many companies rank building and sustaining a team-based
organization as their chief concern. By enabling a group of people to get
together and interact within their own perimeters, the company has already shown
that their employees are just as important as the company itself (Robbins
1984).

Understanding people is one of the hardest parts of being involved in an
organization. People behave different in every way possible. People think
differently, act differently, and react differently. The field of organizational
behavior is all about understanding people. In order to be able to manage people
efficiently, they have to be understood (Robbins 1984).

Goal Accomplishment

When people join an organization, their purpose is usually to accomplish a
goal. The goal of many high school organizations is to perform community
service. The goal of many large rival companies such as NBC and ABC is to get
high ratings. No matter how big or small a company is, there is always a goal to
be accomplished. It has been said that the key to accomplishing a goal
successfully is hard word and determination. Of course it requires more than
just hard work and determination to make a goal possible. It usually varies by
the people in the organizations (Podsakoff 1997).

Group Effort

Group effort is the backbone of an organization. Without group effort, it
will make accomplishing a goal even harder. By having people join forces and
work together, the goal is easier to accomplish. Any sports organizations
require teamwork in order to get their goal accomplished. By working together,
their goal is to defeat the other team (Podsakoff 1997).

What is Organizational Behavior?

The study of people at work is generally referred to as the study of
organizational behavior. This chapter will start by defining the term
organizational behavior and briefly reviewing its origins. Organizational
behavior is the systematic study of the actions and attitudes that people
exhibit within organizations.

Each person regularly uses intuition or our "gut feelings" in trying to
explain phenomena. For example, a friend catches a cold and we’re quick to
remind him that he "didn’t take his vitamins". The field of organizational
behavior seeks to replace intuitive explanations such as this example with
systematic study. The objective, of course, is to draw more accurate conclusions
(Wilson 1994).

What does organizational behavior study? Actions (or behaviors) and
attitudes. The behaviors that get the bulk of attention in organizational
behavior are three, which have proven to be very important determinants of
employee performance. They are productivity, absenteeism, and turnover (Wilson
1994). The importance of productivity is obvious. Managers are clearly concerned
with the quantity and quality of the work their employees are performing. But
absence and turnover are particularly cause for concern because of the adverse
affect it may have on an employee’s productivity. In terms of absence, it’s hard
for an employee to be productive if he or she isn’t at work. High rates of
employee turnover increase costs and tend to place less experienced people into
jobs (Daniels 1994).

Organizational behavior is also concerned with employee job satisfaction,
which is an attitude. There are three reasons why managers should be concerned
with their employees’ job satisfaction. First, there is a link between
satisfaction and productivity. Second, satisfaction appears to be negatively
related to absenteeism and turnover. Third managers have a humanistic
responsibility to provide their employees with jobs that are challenging and
rewarding (Daniels 1994).

The second part of organizational behavior’s definition that
needs to be explained is "organization". For our purposes organizational
behavior is specifically concerned with work-related behavior-and that takes
place in organizations. An organization is a formal structure of planned
coordination, involving two or more people, in order to achieve a common goal
(Daniels 1994).

Why Study Organizational Behavior?

Why Organizational Behavior is an important subject for
people to study about?

Organizational Behavior Is Interesting

Organizational behavior is about studying and understanding
people and human nature. Do employee ever make efforts on behalf of their
employing organization’s interests or fellow employees’ interest when it is not
in their direct self-interest to do so? This question exists in any organization
must be address. The problem addressed here is a conflict of self-interest. The
question here should be very interesting to people in organization. People
should try to understand and address counterintuitive behavior in certain
situation (Young 1998). For instance, why does moral hazard exists in
organization?

Organizational behavior success or failure depends on its goal
setting, such as group cohesiveness and productivity. In a case study of 2
groups several researchers have suggested that goal acceptance moderates the
relationship between group cohesiveness and group productivity. In Study 1, goal
acceptance was found to moderate the relationship between group cohesiveness and
the quantity of performance of 40 machine crews in a paper mill located in the
northeastern United States. In Study 2, the extent to which leaders fostered the
acceptance of group goals was found to moderate the relationships between group
cohesiveness and quantitative measures of group productivity in 71 insurance
agency units located throughout the United States. The companies’ success or
failure in this study will be explained in organizational behavior (Jacob
1985).

Organizational behavior becomes interesting when people willing
to understand and address the behavior of organization. The textbook,
Organizational Behavior in a Multi-Cultural Environment, provides
tool to explain organizational behavior.

Goals Of The Field

The field of most organizational behavior has an amount of common goals. In
order to reach these goals, people need to effectively predict, explain, and
manage the behavior that occurs in our organizations. In order to change
behavior, one needs to accept that any behavior is rational and logical to the
person exhibiting it because his or her goals may differ from others. If an
organization is able to predict which reward systems is most effective in
motivating the employees, then one can explain the reasons for this
effectiveness and describe how managers can enforce effective reward
systems.

Our everyday lives are about predictions. Predicting the behavior in an
organization is usually wondering "when people will make ethical decisions,
create innovative products, or engage in sexual harassment" (Johns 1996). The
behavior in our organizations licenses us the prediction of its future
circumstance. Predictions are not always accurate, however. The field of
organizational behavior offers a "Scientific foundation" (Johns 1996). That
helps upgrade predictions of these events. But, being able to predict these
organization behaviors do not guarantee a hundred percent that he can explain
the reason why this particular behavior had developed.

People have to develop an effective strategy. Organizations are especially
concerned with "why people are more or less motivated, satisfied, or prove to
resign" (Wilson 1994). "When motivating employees to change their behavior
remember that positive consequences to any behavior, and negative consequences
to any behavior are likely to diminish it" (Wilson 1994). The catch is that the
consequences must be perceived as positive or negative from their points of
view. Too often, supervisors implement consequences that are positive or
negative from their points of view and then wonder why the behavior change did
not take place. For example, an ongoing issue in manufacturing is the goal of
improved safety. In this area, a primary concern is how to motivate employees to
wear their safety hats and glasses. The dilemma is that employees perceive more
positive consequences for not complying with the policy of safety gear than they
do for adhering to it. It is easier, more comfortable and more convenient to
work without hard hat and glasses, so employees avoid them. The supervisory
challenge is to motivate employees so that the positive consequences for
compliance outweigh the positive consequences for noncompliance. Predicting
these events is easier then explaining them. An organization that has a problem
needs to find out why this is happening before something can be done. Particular
behavior can have more than one cause. For example, Jason can resign because he
is not satisfied with his pay; he has problems with co-workers, or simply
because of family problems. These problems can change overtime.

The ability to understand behavior is a necessary prerequisite for
effectively managing it. There are two kinds of reinforcement, positive and
negative. "Positive reinforcement causes a behavior to increase because a
desired, meaningful consequences follows the behavior. Negative reinforcement
causes a behavior to increase in order to escape or avoid some unpleasant
consequence" (Daniels 1994).

A manger needs to be able to get things accomplished, reach all goals, take
control, and knows everything that is going on in their company I know that
there varieties of management styles to be effective, depending on the
situation. There are some cases when a manager acts without investigation, just
looking for that quick solution to solve a problem usually results in an unhappy
ending.

If an organizational behavior "Can be predicted and explained, it can often
be controlled or managed" (Johns 1996). A great manager would be able to predict
a certain behavior and have an act on it before it’s too late. Remember, our
lives would be more easier if we anticipate when our friends are anger, what our
professors expect out of us, and whose lying and telling the truth, "Regardless
of who we are our actions are in response to a variety of motivations" (Wilson
1994). When one understands, one will understand human behavior. Use the
predicting. Explaining, and managing principles, and any manger will have the
ability to reach your goals through the efforts of others.

Early Prescriptions Concerning Management

In the past, experts have argued different approaches to management. Some
disputed the classical view was the "correct" method of management. On the hand,
others believed the humanistic view was the best practice. These two viewpoints
shaped the development of management principles.

The Classical View and Bureaucracy

Through the introduction of the assemble line of Henry Ford’s Model T,
problems arose of how to organize the factory as efficient and effective as
possible. The classical perspective first emerged in the nineteenth century and
early twentieth century. Much of the classical writers had backgrounds in
military settings, mining operations, and factories. Such classical writers are
Henri Fayol, General Motors executive James D. Mooney, and Lyndall Urwick. They
all believed that managers should exercise control primarily by defining
boundaries: telling people how to do their jobs and monitoring them with
constant surveillance to guard against any surprises. In other words, the
classical view was the management method that advocated high specialization of
labor, intensive coordination, and centralized decision making. This technique
suggested less low-level workers and more substitutes such as machines. This
will allow less monitoring and more control (Daft 1997).

There have been many arguments that do not favor this viewpoint. This is one
case where a company did not pay enough attention to the classical
conceptualists teachings. At Bausch & Lomb, the aggressive culture and
overemphasis on a rewards system drove the organization "too far, too fast, and
nearly ran it off a cliff" (Picken & Dess 1997). The company focused on
making the numbers and not so much the costs. Picken and Dess also stated that
organizations should maintain standards of ethical behavior and a sense of "fair
play" (1997). Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries was stressed. "The more the
culture and rewards drive ambition and goal-seeking behavior, the better tuned
and stronger the brakes need to be, i.e. a system of boundaries and constraints"
(Picken and Dess 1997). Bausch & Lomb had set their standards too late in
the game resulting from bad planning in management.

The classical perspective was also engineered through the ideas of the
scientific method. Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was the first to develop
scientific management; thus, Taylor is called the father of scientific
management. Taylor created a system using research to determine the optimum
degree of specialization and standardization of work tasks. In addition, he
supported having these standards written and recorded, clearly defined work
procedures and encouraged breaks for maximum work efficiency. With the help of
the evolution of the classical perspective, also known as the traditional
approach to management (Daft 1997).

Based on the tradition approach to management, Picken and Dess introduced the
contemporary approach to management. The traditional method of strategic control
concentrated of measurement and assessment of performance. This was the way
managers formerly approached strategic control over their company. Picken and
Dess proposed this process as follows: (1) strategies are formed and top
management makes goals, (2) strategies are then implemented, and performance is
measured against the predetermined goals (Figure 1.3) (1997). Control is based
on a feedback loop from the results.

Furthermore, Picken and Dess also developed their version of the contemporary
approach to strategic control (Figure 1.4) (1997). Compared to the traditional
approach,

the contemporary approach involved two different types of strategic control:
behavioral and informational. Behavioral control is defined by focusing on
"doing things right" effectively manipulating the key "levers" of culture,
rewards and boundaries (Picken and Dess 1997). Informational control deals with
external part of control in the company. This type of control also dealt with
the assumptions and premises that provide the foundation for an organization’s
strategy (Picken Dess 1997). The main difference between the traditional and
contemporary approach is that in the contemporary approach, there is an "ongoing
process of organizational learning continuously updates and challenges" the
culture and standards of the company (Picken and Dess 1997). The classical
perspective still lives today. One can see this in the standards of companies
like Hewlatt Packard and the Walt Disney Corporation.

One other contributor to the development of the classical view was Max Weber
(1864 - 1920). Weber was a German social theorist, as well as, a practicing
manager who made the idea of bureaucracy famous in management principles. Weber
was in the midst of nepotism and favoritism in family – based businesses. He
believed this should not be included in basic management practices, and should
be more based on rational authority.

Rationality meant carefully selecting workers for their skills, and
advancement rooted on competence. According to Weber, these are the following
criteria for bureaucracy (Johns 1996):

A strict chain of command in which each member reports to only a single
superior.

Criteria for selection and promotion based on impersonal technical skills
rather than nepotism and favoritism.

A set of detailed rule, regulations, and procedures ensuring that the job
gets done regardless of who the specific worker is.

The use of strict specialization to match duties with technical
competence.

The centralization of power at the top of the organization.

Even though Weber believed his theoretical model was an "ideal type" for
management and Frederick Taylor with his scientific management principles, there
were other contributors to the classical perspective such as Mary Parker Follett
(1868 – 1933). Follett noticed that the classical view did not pay too close
attention to the "essential conflict of interest between managers and employees"
(Johns 1996).

Peter D. Sherer, Nikolai Rogovsky and Norman Wright found an example of this
conflict in the business of the Taxicab Organization (1998). Sherer, Rogovsky
and Wright found these difficulties in the similar relationship of agencies. The
questioned asked was how can the employer control an employee when the worker
leaves the employer’s view (Sherer, et al., 1998). There was no or little
control between employment and non-employment relationships within this
organization (Sherer, et al., 1998). Their study showed that there were problems
with control in the firm’s internal capabilities and strategic external
opportunities (Sherer, et al., 1998). This proves Follett’s point that the
classical view ignores the friction that arises from not enough control in the
Taxicab Organization. This leads to the humanistic relations movement that did
account for these issues.

The Human Relations Movement and a Critique

The year of 1920s and 1930s during the Great Depression was a time known as
the Human Relations era. It generally began with the study of educational
management. The studies were at the plant of Western Electric near Chicago known
as Hawthorne studies. It notices effects of psychological and social processes
on productivity and work adjustment. This is how the theme "human relations
movement" was form by a number of theorists and researchers, Elton Mayo and
Fritz Roethlisberger and Hawthorne’s William J. Dickson (Wiles 1995).

Based on The human relations movement. It was called upon to have more of a
people focused management style. The critical problems were identified through
some of the classic management styles and standard so call "Red Tapes" (Wiles
1995).

The disciplinary of enforcing specialization cannot allow humans to be
creative in their own way. This is a breakdown in the employee and organization
relationships, not to mention the clients. There are no convergence in the
employees, management, and clients. The ability for growth is no longer there to
stimulate development (Wiles 1995).

If everything is based strictly upon rules and regulations, without the human
touch and common sense, efficiency and productivity will not exceed to the next
level. The classic management has a blind spot or the so call "Tunnel Vision"
(Human Relations Movement 1999). This is explained with the philosophy that if
strict rules are set, with strict specialization and centralization, then there
should be good efficiency and productivity. Based on this theory, employees will
too have "Tunnel Vision". Employees will follow strict set rules and quotas,
without realizing their potential for greater performance. Employees will only
look and focus on the "Tree" but will fail to look at "The Entire Forrest". More
often enough, the everyday flows of operations for any company rely on the
clients. Our employees, who are often at the forefront dealing with the
customers, know what the customers’ needs and wants are. Strict centralization
and bureaucracies will stricken and hinder the creativity of the employees to
make changes and growth (Human Relations Movement 1999).

A Company can not grow effectively with strong specialization. This will be
good for robotics and automation in the assembly line, but not with human.
Employees must understand the goals and purpose in relation to the clients, so
that diversity and changes can be implemented effectively to meet the needs of
the clients. Some Japanese companies and its management team even rotated their
employees from one job function to another and from department to department.
This method allows the employees to understand the entire process from standard
procedures to client and departmental needs and wants (Human Relations Movement
1999).

Ultimately, the human factor in any organization is essential for growth and
achievement of that next level. But the problems in many of these bureaucratic
organizations have escalated to a level where groups and movements are calling
for change. Hopefully, one day we will even see apparent changes in our
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Contemporary Management – The Contingency
Approach

There is a tension between the classical approach and the human relation
approach. The classical advocates indicated the critical role of control and
coordination in getting organizations to achieve their goals. The human
relationists indicated the dangers of certain forms of control and coordination
and addressed the need for flexibility and adaptability. There are several
researches and management experiences to assist sort out the complexities of
this problem, and the general answer is "it depends". Which leadership style is
most effective? This depends on the characteristics of the leader, and what the
leader is trying to achieve (Dittle 1996).

The contingency approach to management recognizes that there is no one best
way to manage, and the most effective management styles and organizational
designs are dependent upon the demands of the situation (Dittle 1996).

What Do Managers Do?

Research on what managers do shows that they fulfill interpersonal,
informational, and decisional roles. Important activities include routine
communication, traditional management, networking, and human resource
management. Managers pursue agendas through networking, and use intuition to
vary across cultures. A good grasp of organizational behavior is essential for
effective management (Kuman 1997).

Managerial Roles

Henry Mintzberg, a Canadian management theorist, conducted an in-depth study
of the behavior of several managers. He discovered a complex set of roles played
by the managers: figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator,
spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and
negotiator. These role are summarized here (See Figure 1.5):

After studied the behavior of a large number of managers in a variety of
different kinds of organizations, the researchers indicated that the managers
engaged in four basis types of activities: routine communication, traditional
management, networking, and human resource management (Kuman 1997).

Managerial Agendas

Behavior patterns of successful managers was something that John Kotter
observed. John Kotter discovered differences among them, but he also discovered
similarities. He would categorize their patterns by agendas. These agendas were
agenda setting, agenda networking, and agenda implementation (Kuman
1997).

"At Mattel Inc., Mattel Chief Executive Jill Barad used to be a manager of
Mattel. She was in charge of the Barbie doll section. Jill Barad boosted the
doll sales from $320 million in 1985 to $ 415 million in 1986 (Goldman 1999).
She got promoted because of her efforts. Now she is in charge of more than just
Barbie dolls. She is in charge of the Mattel Company. People are questioning if
Jill can handle a higher position making tough decisions. Mattel is going
through some problems due to a decrease in sales. Jill recently made the
decision to cut costs by eliminating 3,000 jobs and closing some plants (Goldman
1999). Jill is also going to Learning Co., the nation’s second largest software
company, hoping to capitalize on the Internet stock frenzy. Jill hopes this will
put the company’s costs in line with stalled revenue growth. People are
questioning her management styles. They say she is too soft, initiating flexible
hours, a two-week Christmas break and half-day Fridays. They also say she is a
control fanatic. She boosted sales when she was a manager, the question is can
she do the same as a chief executive of Mattel (Johnson 1999)?

Agenda Setting

At their positions, Kotter’s managers all came up with agendas of what they
wanted to accomplish for their organization. Many came up with their agendas
even before getting their positions in the organizations. Jill Barad knew what
she wanted to accomplish when she became manager of Barbie dolls. She wanted to
bring a toy she loved as a child into a modern age where a new generation of
girls could appreciate a new oriented doll. As chief executive, Jill’s agenda is
to keep Mattel from going out of business. Managers base their agendas on wide
ranging informal discussion with a variety of people. One type to Jill was the
new generation of girls (Johnson 1999).

Agenda Networking

A wide informal and formal network of key people inside and outside of its
organization was a something Kotter’s manager established. Inside key people are
peers, subordinates, and bosses. Outside key people are customers, suppliers,
competitors, government officials, and the press. These people help provide
managers with information related to their agendas. When Jill Barad was manager
of Barbie dolls, her outside key people was the new generation of girls. She
needed to know what these girls want in the modern age to sell Barbie dolls.
When she became chief executive, she eliminated jobs and closed some plants also
based on key outside people. One is rival competitor Hasbro Inc. They are
launching a new line called " The Phantom Menace" based on the upcoming "Star
Wars" movie. This could increase Mattel’s problems as they are already
decreasing in sales. Another factor is big timing customers like Toys R Us who
distributes their products. Toys R Us is planning to reduce Mattel’s
inventories. This adds to Mattel’s money problems (Johnson 1999).

Agenda Implementation

To implement their agendas, managers would go anywhere in the network or
outside of the organization for help. They also employ a wide range of influence
tactics from direct orders to subtle language that will convey their stories
indirectly. Jill Barad went outside her organization to the software company,
Learning Co., hoping to become a success on the internet stocks. As chief
executive, Jill’s agenda was to get Mattel back on track (Johnson 1999).

Managerial Minds

In contrast to how managers act, there is also a focus to how managers think.
Managers have many observations and one key observation is managerial intuition.
Intuition is problem identification and problem solving based on long history of
systematic education and experience (Buhler 1999). Some ways intuition is used
are:

To sense that a problem exists

To perform well-learned mental tasks rapidly

To synthesize isolated pieces of information and data

To double-check more formal or mechanical analysis

International Managers

The question that is asked is " Do managers in other global locations act and
think the same way as managers in North America?" The answer is probably " yes."
The styles of how foreign managers act or think might be different.

"In Seoul, Hyundai Group, South Korea’s largest family-owned conglomerate,
could split into five smaller independent entities. This will slash group debts
by $ 28.3 billion. People are blaming them for an economic crisis. Hyundai will
transform itself into companies focusing on electronics, cars, heavy industry,
construction and finance. Park Se-young, chairman of Hyundai’s corporate
restructuring committee, says smaller groups after the split will run
independently with only core companies staying. Hyundai would also reduce its
affiliates through mergers, sales, etc." (Reuters 1999).

Foreign managers are similar to North Americans. They act and think the same
way. Their styles are a little different. Jill Barad sensed a problem for Mattel
and used her experience as manager to help her as chief executive. She decided
to cut costs by eliminating jobs and closing plants. Hyundai sensed a problem as
they were losing business just like Mattel. They didn’t eliminate the huge
number of jobs. Instead, they split their company to reduce debts and formed
mergers. Both Mattel and Hyundai sensed a problem and knew they needed to cut
costs. The only difference was their styles of executing their agendas (Reuters
1999).

Some Contemporary Management Concerns

Diversity-- Local and Global

Diversity has its roots in the 1960s -- a period of massive transition in
which minorities and other groups made significant advances in their respective
in the workplace.

Demographic and social chance have created " the realities of today". In the
past decade, the minority population in America grew very rapidly, especially in
California. As the second millennium approach, the employment of minority has
increased. In today's varied labor market, employers that want to attract the
best people have to recognize that many of those people are women, and many more
are from a greater variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds than in the past.
By tapping into these people, a business can create a workforce that brings new
perspectives to the job (Tomer 1998).

Diversity of age is also having an impact in organizations. This is
particularly true of the most rapidly growing segment of California 's work
force: employees of various ages working in the company. The rapid promotion of
young technical experts in jobs has increased (Digh 1999).

Diversity of various groups has grown. In the past, women often had fewer
promotion opportunities than men did. But now, this has been proven false. The
number of women holds important position in the company has increased. The
survey in many banks report reveals that the number of women among the bank's
executives has increased from 9% in 1991 to 20% in 1996 (Digh 1999).

By valuing diversity, companies can adapt to these changes in a way that can
make the best benefit for the company. The managers must manage it effectively.
If managers want their employees work together effectively in teams, they have
to understand and respect one another. We need all the talent we can get in
coming to grips with the complexities of a global market place. If we all look
the same, and talk the same, and think the same, then we are just going to come
up with one dimensional, humdrum answers. It is often said that variety is the
spice of life. Today, it is also a key ingredient for business success (Digh
1999).

Morale Crisis?

In the past few years, downsizing and restructuring have had a profound
effect on American organizations. The big companies such as Intel, IBM, and
General Motors have laid off a lot of employees. The consequence of these events
has been decreased morale and the loyalty in the employees. Open communication
has become the most important factors in choosing the jobs today (Jacob 1985).
It is ranked above the salary or company size. Communication is an important
topic in organizational behavior. Ironically enough, these concepts are not
really new. Unfortunately, too many managers still do not understand it. Without
sharing the same information management has access to, employees can not make or
understand decisions. Employer should communicate with their employees to help
employees understand what is happening in the company and care about the success
of their organization. These will reduce employee turnover, improved performance
and improved employee moral.

A Focus on Quality and Speed

With both local and global competition growing rapidly, there
has been a strong emphasis on products and services with higher quality.
Customers needs and wants before, during and after a sale are the emphasis today
and to identify how to fit this into the organization is a key issue. Total
Quality Management has been the answer to achieve these goals for many
companies. TQM is a structured system in which an organization attempts to
achieve continuous improvement in quality of its products and services (Dean
1998).

Quality encompasses a wide array of aspects of a product or
service. Generally it can be defined as everything from extra services to the
planet or even a web site for customer feedback. For example, Intel used TQM
programs to enhance their computer microchip by incorporating Japanese learned
design systems into their business. Other companies such as Hewlett Packard,
Motorola, Phillips, IBM and Digital are also benefiting from the use of TQM
programs within their business scope. Ford Motor Company also successfully
applied TQM to enrich their business. By using TQM techniques they were able to
cut cost by almost 10% (Integrated Quality Dynamics Inc. 1999).

But what does this mean, how does the passion for quality and speed has to do
with organizational behavior? Involvement and commitment are two things that are
required of employees. This usually means that management has to allow employees
to

make some decisions that used to have to concern managers. Teamwork is
another key element for quality and speed. It is absolutely necessary for not
only individuals but also groups to work together to meet customer expectations
("Organizations Strive For Dream Team Success" 1998).